From Deseret News archives:

Is process tainted by politics?

Utah County's picks of state school board applicants draw fire

Published: Thursday, July 29, 2004 12:15 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
An incumbent who wants his job back won't see his name on the state school board ballot come November. Neither will a former president of the National School Boards Association, who hoped voters would elect her to shape school policy.

Mike Anderson and Mossi White didn't make the cut.

And that has some observers questioning whether the nominating process is flawed.

The new State Board of Education nominating and recruiting committee chose not to forward Anderson and White's names to the governor, who decides who goes on the ballot.

Some hint that school choice and reform politics have come into play.

Others note some education representatives on the committee weren't there to cast votes.

And even a candidate who got the committee's blessing says the governor won't put him on the ballot because he disagrees with her politics.

Gov. Olene Walker will announce official school board candidates Friday.

"I don't think this is what the Legislature intended at all," said Gainell Rogers, a regional PTA director who oversees branches in Alpine School District. "I think they intended to get the very best possible nominees to the governor, and that is not what happened."

Story continues below
Nearly anyone, from homemakers to convicted felons can — and have — run for public office in Utah. If more than two people seek the same seat, a primary election narrows the field.

But not in state school board elections.

Office seekers must declare candidacy then interview with a committee, which recommends three or more names to the governor. The governor picks two to go on the ballot in each district. If just one or two apply — as is the case in District 1 in northern Utah, District 4 in in Ogden and District 8 in south-central Salt Lake County, both go on the ballot.

Changed process

The nominating process was set up in a 1991 law, aimed partly at ensuring quality candidates for a relatively obscure yet influential body, the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel reports.

Until this year, all 15 board districts had a local nominating committee.

But in 2003, the panels were replaced by a single committee under an education reform law. Earlier this year, SB185 clarified the 12-member committee's membership be split evenly between business and education interests.

"There's no question that in the past I think (the board) has been weighted toward the education community," said Sen. Tom Hatch, R-Panguitch, who sponsored both bills. "I think it was simply an attempt to put some balance in there."

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

Related content
previousnext

Latest comments

I have to laugh at your post. You claim gays don't care about the meaning or...

How many times do we have to go through this? You CANNOT determine the...

Sloan may toy with starting lineup

Where things could be going so badly for an organization and have everyone...

Make us proud boys! No Regrets. Leave it all on the field.

PETA unhappy with Utah laws

I can't believe that people would really rather have a stray dog killed in a...

Cougar vets have seen darker days

This probably wont matter to the whinners, but here goes anyways.... I'm...

PETA unhappy with Utah laws

Has it ever occured to PETA that there are MILLIONS of Americans that are not...

test comment

I agree bro I think its just haters from other schools, those fans were very...

@ Phnehme.....Yep. Thats what we need to do. Bench the teams second leading...

Advertisements
Advertisement